All amateurs or what?

[Scruffy5]

I don't get it.... I signed up to be an editor. I bring a bit of experience.

I have written and edited a little on small-town weekly newspapers. I won an award at it.

Your automatic application robot thingy thinks I'm unsuitable.

 

Why would I pick a category? I am willing to edit whatever you give me.

You need help in an obscure subject? Sure. But I'm not going to waste my time picking one.

Give me a job, I'll do it. Don't know or trust me? Give an unimportant job - I'll do that too.... Someone has to.

But don't tell me I'm unsuitable in any fashion for any job you've got, that just tells me you (or your robot) don't know what you are doing.

Which probably only means you need a lot of help, so why turn good help down?

 

Frank.(alias scruffy5)

[nea]

To start with -- we don't have an application robot. (Would be nice to have one, sometimes, but that's beside the point.) What makes you think it wasn't a human who reviewed your application?

 

And yes, we are most definitely all amateurs, in the sense that we don't get paid for doing this. It's a hobby we do in our spare time, and that's the basis and foundation of the directory. Which also means that it's built on interest. People edit where they are interested, and we don't try to make anybody edit in an area they are not interested. And that means we don't assign editors to categories, ever. "I'm happy to edit anywhere" -- great, and I agree, there's a lot of very interesting subject areas to edit in. (Plenty of uninteresting places too -- again, beside the point). But then it should be easy for you to find an area to apply for!

 

Finally, the application process is designed for people who are applying for a particular category. One of the most important parts of the application is to show that you can find and describe relevant sites for the category you apply for. That wouldn't work if we were to pick a random category for the new editor -- which would also be rather a waste of our time, if you'll forgive me for saying so.

 

Before re-applying, make sure you read and understand the feedback you got. If you think any of it is unclear, feel free to ask about it here.

 

:moz:

[hutcheson]

Yes, we're all amateurs.

 

No, there's only one robot, and he doesn't do editor applications.

 

It sounds like you might enjoy taking on a regional category (one of those small towns), or perhaps a regional subcategory of News. The theory is that people do more if they do what they are interested in. But you're welcome to pick a category at random if you wish. Make it a small one to start out, at least. Other than that, anywhere you can demonstrate your qualifications by finding and describing three good websites, is fine with us. (However, please make it where you think you can find a dozen or two more websites -- once you've done that, you'll have a track record that, hopefully, you'd use to apply for more categories.)

 

As for needing help: a better perspective is: no, the project doesn't really "need" help. It is based on supply, not demand: that is, it does its best to get advantage of what help it is offered. The more help we have, the better coverage we'd have, BUT the less efficient each volunteer's effort would be. It's a trade-off. We're not particularly close to the diminishing returns, IMO, but each volunteer values his own work. Think of it like this: if anyone _feels_ a need to organize known space, the directory offers them empowering tools and structure. Some people don't feel that need, others prefer a different structure -- and that's really OK. Some people feel the need and like (or can tolerate) this structure, and the project does its best to get what it can from them.

 

This last suggests why the structure is kept as free as possible -- the fewer people feel restrained by it, the larger the pool of possible volunteers is. But experience tells us there's so LITTLE structure that some people are made uncomfortable. One way of dealing with that, is to impose whatever structure you need on yourself -- enabling you to work comfortably but leaving other editors free to work in the way that's most effective for them.

 

So, try your approach and don't waste time picking a category. Pick a small one at random. See if you can find sites -- see if you LIKE finding sites -- about that subject. If it works, great! If it doesn't work, you've wasted some time, but you've wasted it in your preferred manner -- and who else has the right to tell you how you should waste your time?

[lancelape]

Applications

 

The questions you have posed are some of the same ones I first asked myself after my first aplication was rejected. No, I'm still not an editor yet I do have another application submitted (my third I think). Each rejection I have learned something new about DMOZ. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that they do have application guidelines posted. I understand why they do this as well. I am know that the process editors use in DMOZ is structured, has rules and guidelines they must follow. If I can not read the guidlines on an application why would they want me? So each time I go back, correct my errors and try again. The day I feel my application was 100% on target and get rejected is when I will stop applying. So for now I will just try again and would suggest to you to not give up or take it personally, just try again.

 

Regards,

 

Lance